Welcome to my new program, “CrossTalk.” Our aim is to really tackle the most important issues of the day – with all opinions and viewpoints given a fair hearing. The program includes me as anchor and the same “IMHO” and “In Context” team, with the addition of Russian television personality Yelena Khanga providing background and facts about what we need to know to understand the stories shaping our world.
Please give the program a watch – your feedback means a lot to us.
Best,
Peter Lavelle
Show comments (17)This past week the presidents of Russia and the United States made earnest attempts to bolster a bilateral relationship that has been in tatters for at least the past eight years. The administration of Barack Obama scrapped Bush-era anti-missile plans in Eastern Europe and Dmitry Medvedev made it clear that Russia remains flexible when dealing with Iran's controversial nuclear program. Is there a quid pro quo in play? It is difficult to say at this point. However, there can be no doubt Russia and the US intend to focus on the few important issues that bring them together. This is a wise approach - for too long both countries have dwelt on what separates them.
Obama's move to walk away from anti-missile plans in Poland and the Czech Republic was decided at the very start of the new American administration. Obama had no intention of going through with defense plans that were too costly and did not work. On top of this, it was abundantly clear that a new start with Russia - now famously called "hitting the reset button" - would be impossible if the plans of George W. Bush came to fruition. Of course we were told that new intelligence findings determined that strategic threats to Europe and the US had changed and that the original missile shield plan was not longer necessary. Indeed, this may or may not be true, but it is obvious all of this has to do with Iran.
Washington has been obsessed with Iran for 30 years. For much of this time the Islamic republic has been subject to international sanctions led by the US. The fact that Tehran has again restarted its nuclear programme and is not as cooperative with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as many demand has much of the Western world - and needless to say, Israel - up in arms (quite literally in some cases).
Russia does not deem Iran as a security threat and has long promoted a policy of dialogue and pushed for incentives to change Tehran's behavior. This is Russia's policy of flexibility and the Obama administration appears to have learned from this approach.
Russia and the US have not made a secret bilateral deal regarding Iran
- at least not yet. However, a new gambit is in play and well worth the attempt. Since the end of the Cold War the US has callously undermined the Non-Proliferation Treaty and all but ignored the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This has critically damaged global security. Now the US wants Russia's cooperation to set these wrongs right. The first step is a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement between the two countries, then work together to tackle nuclear proliferation on a global scale. This is where Iran comes into the picture.
Iran claims it is not in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But at the same time, it points to the fact that Israel is an undeclared nuclear state in the Greater Middle East and given a free pass by Washington when it comes to international non-proliferation conventions. For the majority of the Arab and Muslim world this is a clear example of Western double-standards and duplicity. Obama hopes to change this dynamic and Russia has every reason to support this endeavour.
The significance of Medvedev's meeting with Obama in New York should be understood in the following way: resetting Russia-US relations will take time and a lot of patience. New US plans for missile defense in Europe, the future of NATO, Russia's prerogatives in the post-Soviet space, and energy politics are among the many issues the two countries must comes to terms with. This is why Moscow and Washington have the best chance to mend relations by collaborating on issues that impact global security.
Many see a major showdown on the cards regarding Iran. It is not that simple. Iran is not really the problem. What must be addressed is the fragility of the international order. Since the end of the Cold War the US believed it had licence to do whatever it wanted to on the world stage. This wreaked havoc for all for almost two decades. Obama understands this and so does Russia. Moscow and Washington may never truly be friends and allies, but both can find common cause and a meaningful "reset" of relations by mending the international order.
Peter Lavelle is a political commentator for Russia Today television and presenter of the Sunday panel programme "CrossTalk."
03 October, 2009, 17:10
johnx. I tend to align with you on this. Though, I think, the situation a little bit more complicated. Obama is not only product of the neocon's tycoons, but also a product of the American society of the current era.
GrizzlyBear-r-r. I totally agree with you on the possibility of those two options you provided about future direction of the USA. It may happen, if the country would start "jerking around". And it will. I would add, though, that there are more options, which have certain conditions to be implemented. For example -- the peaceful transformation to a truly mixed race and multi-national society. This process is going on, by the way, already for several decades. The most important thing here -- it requires time and patience. Or, being "brutally honest" -- the old (Cold War era) generation should die out and the new generations (X and Y) should completely dominate in this society. Like in that Biblical story of Moses and his people whom he kept for 40 years in the desert to "replace" them with the new generation which doesn't know what is it to be slaves. So, this way, I would put a very simple goal for American politicians -- any possible way to create conditions which would allow to avoid the civil war within next 30 years. After that the country's transformation will be complete and it will be fine.
Because, what Americans need to understand is that problems are in their heads and not somewhere in the air, outside of them. They look at the presentation of those problems and not at their roots. They thought that W.Bush created the problems. But, now he is gone, but the problems still remain. Now they forgot about Bush and start blaming Obama for all those problems they have. And so on and on. But, is it possible, that those problems originated in the organization of the society itself or those rules which govern this country? How about that gap which is widening between current and actual state of the American society and those basic documents which establish the rules of living? What if the problems exist because people stopped being responsible for themselves and their country? What if the lack of thinking and perception of the surrounding world and ignorance to the political processes in this country is a source of the problems? But, every time when Michael Moore comes with his new documentary and start bringing those questions and digging for answers it creates a storm which move the nasty things in the air. And it smells bad... I wrote already many times -- democracy and freedom are not for free. You have to work hard to have them...
Many Americans afraid certain things and they like ostriches put their heads in the sand. And wait until the problems either magically go away by themselves or somebody else will come to resolve them. They afraid crisis. But, crisis are good. They are healing. They force people to think, act, and being organized. For example I see this fear of the Socialism exhibited by many whom I know. But, why? Sadly, they don't even know what it is about and not willing to know. What they know is that Capitalism it is something what produces goods and the Socialism -- what consumes those goods. This is why the Socialism is evil. So, it requires personal work to learn about it (even better -- to experience it) and then actively either dismiss it forever or accept it. Otherwise it will be exactly what I see in the States today -- on words Americans are "by all their hearts" against the Socialism, but, on practice, they want more and more this Socialism. Without even being aware of it.
And one more thing. Americans afraid of strong government. But, they do not aware that this is exactly the reason -- strong government -- what makes this country being a Superpower and provides stable living environment. I, personally, much more afraid of weak government. I experienced personally in the end of 80s what is it to live in the country without government (or dysfunctional government). A weak government -- a perfect conditions for creating local gangs, mafias, shooting and killing on the streets. A county with the weak government is a county for gangsters. This is a world of humans. If they are not restrained, some of them will start behave like animals.
03 October, 2009, 05:23
Bogdanov,
I think Obama leads the country to a disaster by his outrageous spending programs, ongoing wars and alienating middle class white Americans who are responding to his ruling by buying more guns and ammunition. His latest involvement into a racial motivated scandal in Massachusetts showed his true colors.
I also think that he's a very weak person with no political identity, thus will be manipulated by old boys club of military and financial oligarchs
My prediction is that his presidency will leave the country with two options:
1. Dictatorship that would be the only way to preserve country's integrity
2. USSR-like country dismemberment
We will see all that in no more than eight years from now. The good thing is that after all that happens, nobody will care about Iran any more and Israel will not be considered as unconditional American's friend and multi-billion dollar donation recipient. The bad thing - USA and world's instability if the country will go with option #2.
02 October, 2009, 14:04
@Bogdanov
Look at Obama’s staff members and advisors and there history especially Mr Brezinski. You should read his book The Grand Chessboard and his affiliations and activities of him/his family clan and associates like Gates and Khalizad.
Everything that is happening right now mirrors what was outlined in The Grand Chessboard.
Personally I think there setting up Obama as the fall guy blaming his "Marxist" policies for the worsening economic situation although like the USSR it is a global systematic economic failure hyping up the whole race issue so they can impose martial law.
01 October, 2009, 14:37
So many people (at least, here, in the States) have been caught by surprise by the sharp turns made (or being made) by Obama in many areas of American life. At least, on words (this is not bad start for the change, anyway. At least, it is coherent with the Bible -- "In the beginning there was a Word". Or something like that.). Including the US-Russia relationships. Two countries have seen ups and downs in their relationships in the past. But, what is going on now is different for several reasons (as I see it). Even though I am not very optimistic about very good relationships between them even in the future.
1. America accumulated a pile of political and social problems for many years. Apart from the outdated political System based on the world of 300 years ago which doesn't fit very well in the modern very dynamic and connected world, for the last 20 years it is loosing one of its very significant element -- the unity. Up until today the country's integrity was based on the notion of the external mighty enemy (Evil), which the US has to combat (to be free), and religious principles of lifestyle (basically, dictated by mono-religion -- evangelist church). Both of these elements are slowly dissipating as the world is getting more and more integrated (multicultural) and education becomes a mandatory element of life (big rip for any religion). So the integrity of the country -- it is weakening. Some Americans are still trying to encourage themselves that this is the best of the best place on earth and current downturn is something temporary and everything will be returned to where it was before. But, is sounds less and less convincing these days even for the preachers themselves. While I believe that America will be fine and it is, using many measures, still one of the best places on earth, unlike many Americans, I don't think that America is coming back to the state which it was before. 40-50 years from now, it will be different country populated with different people. Possibly, having different culture.
In fact, what is more convincing is what Obama is advocating -- America is a part of the world and not something above it. The time has come to adjust this System to the new reality. From that perspective, it doesn't seem, that it was completely accidental (thought it was in many ways) that almost unknown Obama ended up in the White House.
2. New generation of politicians came (or coming) to power in both the US and Russia. And this generation doesn't have such antagonistic attitudes toward each other like their fathers had. I am part of this generation and I am talking about many Russians I grew up with. And I see how young Americans (X and Y generations, who brought Obama to power) are much more tolerant to the racial and national differences and more transparent to country boundaries. Though, at this stage, still there is a big crowd of political dinosaurs from the past staying (and will stay for some time) behind the back of this new generation of the world leaders.
3. Obama is the first American president (at least, for the last 100 years) who doesn't have the anti-Russian virus in his blood vessels. Even more than that. I would expect that deep inside he is really sympathetic to Russians. And not only because he met his future wife (Michele) during Russian class in his University years. But, according to my observations, black culture in the US, in general, is more sympathetic to Russia and Socialist ideas are more welcome and better understood in their culture than among ruling white folk. Remember, when Obama visited Moscow? Most of the Western media was paying attention only on the fact that he was not met my Russians as a World Savior. (In fact, one of the reason why they were not so euphoric about this event, because, this is not something new for them -- Russia already had its "Obama" (Pushkin) 200 years ago, who is up to there days still one of the most admired figures in the Russian history). But, what I noticed, that Obama so liked being in Russia in the company of Medvedev and Putin, that he didn't want to leave (probably, several months being surrounded by neocons was quite enough for him). :-) By the way, I would suggest Obama to run for the Kremlin in 2012. I bet that there is a pretty good chance for him to win the hearts of Russians. Funny enough, but most of the Americans (especially older generation, mostly Republicans whom I spoke with) would love to see Putin running for the White House during next presidential election in the US. :-)
4. Both Obama and Medvedev are intellectuals. Both of them are well educated and have good brains which reflect the real life with all its complexity. I believe that neither of them look at the world with the simplistic views (black and white, good and evil), the qualities exhibited by most of the American presidents in the second half of the 20th century (culminated with R. Reagon and W.Bush being crown jewels of the political profanity). McCain would be one more. But, then, I believe, he would be the last president of the country used to be known as Mighty USA. I personally see, both Obama and Medvedev as the most progressive leaders of the modern era. Sadly, though, I think, they came little bit ahead of their time (may 10 years) and therefore not completely understood and accepted in the world politics. The World is not ready yet to accept them. Obama -- for being "too radical and Socialistic". And Medvedev -- due to usual arrogant, ignorant, and prejudiced attitude toward Russia and Russians.
As Peter said, and I agree with this, that it is not clear how everything will be turned out -- it is not necessarily that the US and Russia may be good friends. Still there are and will be a lot of things to stumble over and compete for. But, one thing is for sure -- this is a new era in the politics and relationships between two countries. The era of generation X. I believe, for both Russia and the US there is no coming back to the old style of the Cold War. I still expect that there may be some steps back in the next 5-10 years. But, there is no way that the processes started in both countries can be stopped -- both the US and Russia move to the direction where Europe and Canada is today -- with better balanced public and private sectors and more strong system of the social support. Possibly, all of them, will be partially influenced by China, which in its turn, will be influenced by them.
Anyway, if you ask me if I believe in paradise on earth, my answer will be -- no. This is how God designed this cruel Universe. To exist only through the struggle and perish forever through remarkable cataclysm. So, possibly, the interesting life expects us ahead. I do not expect, though, that the road will be covered with flowers.
01 October, 2009, 12:08
@ johnx
Absolutely agree… Asia has become a treasure chest, whoever controls it, controls the world currency, and the world economy.
Russia and the USA are the keys to the treasure chest.
But I believe the energy that is driving this crazy world, is that some crooked bankers have totally mismanaged the Dollar, and are now the trying to liquidate the USA, and install the Euro, using those secretive gangster like organizations, the FED, Bank of England, and ECB, which work “above” governments.
I think it would be so much easier if these “terrorists” wore Dollar and Euro T shirts, so we could tell which side they on.
I believe that even if the Euro beats the Dollar, the world still wont work, so I think these bankers are up to some really horrific stuff.
This has happened once before, the bankers put all the banks in a safe neutral location, Switzerland, and then created a terrible Hollywood movie to change the global currency, we called it WWII. War is always a lie.
I think these bankers must be really upset that the USA, China, India and Russia, have not fallen for it, because my chessboard tells me that this can only work if those countries turn on each other.
At first it’s hard to believe, but it’s the only model that I can think of that fits, these bankers are pure evil, and not very bright, replaying WWII is not clever.
The USA and the BRICs must stick together like glue, and create a new clean financial system and global currency as fast as possible.
We RESET like that, or we RESET with a WWII replay, is there a choice.
Our backhanding puppet leaders seem to be taking us the wrong way.
@ Alfredo
I couldn’t agree more, if good men put together an archangel organization that took evil bankers out, we would never have war.
This is actually what the freemasons was supposed to be about, but they also as crooked as hell.
I am so impressed with Putin, he is a real leader, and I think if it wasn’t for the combination of Obama, Jintao and Putin the nukes would already be in the sky.
I say, don’t let these bankers get away with it, and don’t let them do it to the world again. The right war is… us against the bankers.
30 September, 2009, 23:42
the way out is a new world police. Moscow and Washington can make this police. them condemn all nuclear weapons worldwide, they can do it by diplomacy or force and nobody will fight Russia and Moscow. beginning with Israel, Pakistan, India, north Korea France the UK. them china the USA and Moscow will disarm unilaterally synchronize and at least there will never be a nuclear war however other wars will still exist. but civilize ones.
30 September, 2009, 21:21
Thank you 007!
Now as Bogdanov has so well put it, all of us have some reason(s) to be on this. One of mine is education: I don’t want to go in the dark not knowing what hit me.. although this is the most probable outcome. How many of us, in the wider sence, will be spared this ‘most probable outcome?’ – not many I think.
About “Just as a footnote, anti-Semitism is raging on the Internet, and they wrong, there are Jews on all sides of this equation” – don’t worry about this. I stopped being anti any group of people some years ago, and this I’m saying not just to cover my back. I believe it’s in fact fairly simple: we’re all equal, correct? (But to understand you actually have to Believe this, not just repeat it because it’s the politically correct phrase of the day.. .) This means we have the same capabilities.. and therefore in fact we’re the same. Further this means that if some of us are capable of something or did something, in fact we’re all capable of this something or did this something. If Nazis were capable of putting millions in concentration camps, we’re all capable of this too. It’s not ‘them’ who did it, It’s ‘us’ in fact who did it – ‘us’, the collective humanity, because we’re all the same, correct.. . We’re all responsible, so responsible in fact as if we did it with our own two hands. Same goes for the Soviet gulags, A-bombs dropped on Japan or Caesar butchering 20% of the population of Gaul.. .Same goes for all the positive things in this world: it’s not America that has already been to the moon, but it’s us people who have already been to the moon. That’s why I don’t find any sense in pointing fingers or being proud of national heroes or national histories if you will. Make sense?..
Back on topic.
Your explanation has shed a great deal of light on areas normally covered with darkness for me. Thanks again! I’ll go over it and try to filter out only more important questions/comments I have:
“if China, Russia and the USA now join forces” – I can’t see this happening: Russia maybe, due to nation’s mentality, I think even after all they’ve had to go through because of the Anglo-American world, they could be persuaded to join forces with the US. But China, I think not. Also, they’re (the Chinese) the ones now that have the very real posibility to be the next ‘’master’’ of the world: therefore, why agree to share power with the losers (the US never did while on top)? And why should their goal be an international reserve currency, when the yuan as a global reserve currency will be much more advantageus to China, as you have pointed out? I mean, who doesn’t like free lunches?..
Also, for Iran, if it is simply because of the Euro its survival has become questionable, why don’t they simply move to the dollar?..
Why didn’t Sadam?.. Is it so difficult?
Also, if Iran is fighting for the Euro, I would expect the EU to be a bit more supportive of Iran, as they’re helping their “free lunch.”
“Understand that this currency war is not winnable, when the USA fails, it’s WWIII, and then the crooked bankers win.” How can you win when you’re dead? (this in accordance with modern western world’s logics)
I also want to ask you: in your opinion, and following the money, why are the US and UK in Afganistan and former Yugoslavia (I think mainly of Kosovo now)? Is it still the Euro vs Dollar war or there’s more to it? If I didn’t know better I’d say top US and UK strategists are probably archaeology freaks: I mean think: Afganistan – incredably old civilization. Irak – oldest civilization officially accepted. Balkans – oldest civilization in Europe and if “Vinca civilization” wasn’t so carefully ignored in fact older than Sumer. Iran – need I mention.. . If I’m to follow this line of thought I’d expect the next to be Tibet, Northern India, Egypt, Ethiopia, Central and parts of South America (like Peru, Bolivia..).
BR,
Aleks
30 September, 2009, 02:40
I think it has more to do with Iran potentially being a major political power in the region using it's oil and gas reserves to become a major independent power in the region from Washington and creating a sphere of influence.
Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states have as much a stake perhaps even more so of weakening Iran than does Israel
It will be interesting to see what Iraq's stance on Iran would be given that it has a large Shite population like Iran and potential joint energy projects.
The target is not Iran the target is Russia, China and Central Asia you only have to look at Obamas staff members and there history sand positions.
The Georgian assault was the most direct yet of this 3 decades long policy to get Eurasian oil and gas to western markets under US control.
While everyone has been distracted on the Iran issue they have been missing what is happening in Russia, China and Afghanistan and movements of these militants groups in Central Asia.
Increased troop presence and NATO operations in Afghanistan make perfect sense in this regards to destabilise neighbouring regions not to make them more secure.
Uzbekistan might to the most likely target for destabilisation.
29 September, 2009, 15:24
@ Aleksandar Hranov
Good question, here’s my money theory… the real news ;)
Firstly what you need to do is research what a “global reserve currency” actually means.
A global reserve currency is a “free lunch”, so all countries want one, it does have this nasty side effect of destroying the host nations industry, but that’s another story.
Here’s an example… I live in a country on “Local” currency, and I need petrol for my car. To get that petrol the “Local” currency has to be turned into “Dollars”, because that’s what the Arabs want.
The oil itself is not that important, it’s that currency exchange.
Just because I bought petrol, the FED bank of the USA, now has my “Local” currency, and all they had to do is run a Dollar press, they export “paper”.
So now the FED can come back to my country and buy our gold… just because I bought petrol.
A global reserve currency is more powerful than all the armies in the world… you need to understand that.
A global currency is pretty neat, but it’s also the reason the world fails, it should not belong to any country, a long story.
This is why the USA has been fighting wars all over the world, because the FED (which is not American) uses them to protect that global currency.
Now ask yourself what happens when the Arab countries decide to sell oil on the Euro! Yes, chaos breaks out.
Iraq moved to the Euro… and the USA took them out… and now you can guess what the problem with Iran is… it’s on the Euro ;)
But its more complex, because the Israeli banking lobby in the USA is very powerful, many people think that Israeli’s own the international banking system, not surprising if you look at the people that run the USA.
Personally I think that European royalty pulls all the strings, but Israel can be thought of as the banker nation of the world, which explains why a tiny country is so incredibly powerful.
Now Bush was an idiot, without realizing it, he sold the Dollar, because while he rushed off to “fight terrorism”, these bankers were sabotaging the Dollar and installing the Euro.
When Tony Blair and Brown, tried to put Iraq on the Euro, only then did the USA wake up… this is why USA relations with Britain (Euro Spies) and Obama Israel relations are now strained.
Now because Russia and China are flipping sleeping, and have not got together with Obama and said, lets all make a new global currency and outsmart these bankers, Obama is oscillating between depending on the bankers that screwed the USA, and battling the crooked bankers… he is stuck in a hard place.
The news talks in euphemisms, some may call it complete lies, but this “nuclear negotiation”, actually means… Dollar Euro war.
Why the “banker owned” news stations are lying is because these bankers did a lousy job of killing the USA, it’s still very much alive, and if China, Russia and the USA now join forces, these bankers are in trouble.
The politicians are all paid by the bankers and they too blind to see who the enemy really is, and too weak to realize that if the BRICs and the USA, make a new banking system and a new world currency, we will have a brand new and very cool world, that works!
So, we all die while these morons now fight a currency war, “staged” by the bankers, which will kill us all, and leave these crooked bankers in power of evil earth.
Our politicians don’t seem to realize that money is just paper… until now that is, when Obama has basically said, hey, maybe Russia and China is not the enemy.
Now we will see if they smart enough to realize that once they get these crooked bankers out the way, they don’t want the global currency, they have to make the *whole* world spin.
The real problem is most of our “leaders” are banking puppets, and “democracy” itself is a colossal lie.
Understand that this currency war is not winnable, when the USA fails, it’s WWIII, and then the crooked bankers win. See why I’m yelling at our “leaders”.
Too much to try explain so briefly… but when you watch CNN, know that they lying through their teeth.
Middle East negotiations on “settlements” actually means, have you bankers made up your mind yet, do you love the USA, or do you love money.
Its complex, but I think there is only one way to save earth and humanity, these bankers have to go, and Russia, China and the USA have to wake up fast!
Do not fight the Euro Dollar war… get together and make a new system, fast!
Our world clearly has some good men out there, but what they need to understand is that they cannot win, unless they take the global currency away from these crooked bankers… and that the “USA plus BRIC”, is all the consensus they actually need.
To me its as obvious as daylight, we about to build heaven or hell and there is no in-between, good men have to fight, and now the truth is more important than ever before… we have to take the virus out of capitalism, and then make earth spin.
But remember… this is just my view of the world.
Peter Lavelle is leading the sheep to water, and letting us see our reflection… and our “civilization” is not a pretty sight… to me we look like banking thieves with our hands now stuck in an empty cookie jar.
We are all stuck in a system, it’s fixable, but after all the damage that has been done, will our leaders have the strength of mind to do the right thing… this is the question?
Just as a footnote, anti-Semitism is raging on the Internet, and they wrong, there are Jews on all sides of this equation, a Jew bust the world bank scam wide open, American Jews don’t want to see the USA murdered, so that is not the war.
The bankers that are trying to make this an America versus Russia thing… are the real enemy.
Also Israel must not be seen as the “bankers”, because if this goes wrong, the bankers will sacrifice it, there will be no Israel left if this goes pear shaped.
You can see Israel as Dollar, and Iran as Euro… but in actual fact, the crooked bankers are playing both sides, and that’s what I’m trying to show you.
Thank god for RT, it’s become the voice of sanity.
29 September, 2009, 11:20
Peter has covered many different points I want to address just one for now. Is Iran a serious threat?
Maybe I am missing something but I don’t believe Iran posses a major threat. The Iranian government has invited inspectors into this second plant, a plant that has been known about for a long time and its enrichment capability was always part of the calulations.It is very easy to prove if Iran is enriching for nuclear power or for a nuclear bomb, power is 4 to 7% enrichment, a bomb is over 90% and because Iran has invited inspectors in I doubt they have much to hide. Plus the fact that a large percentage of the Iranian public are very concerned over relations with the west and do not want any confrontation. I believe diplomacy is the order of the day.Santions now would be counter-productive.
Part of this diplomacy must take on board Iran’s concerns. The fact that the neighbouring state of Israel has an arsenal of over 200 nuclear warheads enough not only to destroy Iran but much of the Arab world.
Looking at recent history I find Israel to be far more aggressive and disproportionate in its actions. The attack on the west bank was brutal over the top and shameful even their allies could not rein them in. And the deliberate destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure was merciless and barbaric.
I believe Israel is a state almost out of control the US gave them a feeling of invincibility and they in my opinion pose the greatest threat to stability in the region. America has created a monster and its time they dealt with it. The nuclear disarmament of Israel should be included in negotiations with Iran and the wider Middle East. How can you complain about Iran having nuclear potential when Israel has more warheads than the UK a permanent Security Council member. The word hypocritical springs to mind.
28 September, 2009, 22:47
“Iran claims it is not in pursuit of a nuclear weapon.” But what if it was..and officially too?
I have a question, obviously I’m missing something:
Can somebody pls explain to me why is one fairly small state, Israel, allowed to have nuclear weapons and another fairly big one, Iran, not?
I mean after all isn’t Iran at least the size (both in terms of population and territory) of France or the UK?..and they’re both nuclear powers and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Pakistan too seems to be a well accepted nuclear power.. without being an overgrown titan like say the US, Russia, China or India.. .
BR
Aleks
The Obama administration’s decision to scrap the Bush era anti-missile defense plans in Eastern Europe was actually expected. Nonetheless, this was a very pragmatic move on the part of Washington. However, the immediate talk and plans for a different American-led “stronger, smarter, and swifter” anti-missile strategy was not helpful. I will reserve judgment on this matter until more details are made available.
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates didn’t mention cooperation with Russia in this new strategy, though the US president made it clear that he wanted this to happen. So we have to wait and see. But one thing is constant: American weapon contractors can still count on billions of US taxpayer dollars to counter military and security threats the US created in the first place.
We have been told that the Bush plan (actually designed by Gates when he served in the Bush administration) was ditched because of revised military intelligence reports. In those reports it is believe the so-called Iranian threat has changed – instead of worrying about Tehran’s long-range missiles, we now need to be mindful of its short-range missiles. Well that is really interesting! US military intelligence doesn’t exactly have the best track record, and it can hardly be called intelligent. US military intelligence got us into Iraq and cannot come up with a real plan to get us out of Afghanistan. This is why I believe Obama’s “out with old and in with the new” anti-missile plan should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Why now? Why did Obama make his announcement now and why did NATO suddenly parrot Washington’s alleged new approach toward Moscow on missile defense? NATO can hardly find a consensus on any issue, particularly regarding Russia. Well, it is really all about “someone else’s” problem – Iran.
Russia and Iran are not friends, nor allies. However, it is fair to say they do not have hostile attitudes toward each other. Simply put, Russia does not see Iran as threatening and is very hesitant to join other countries desiring to destabilize the regime in Tehran. Moscow also does not see any wisdom in punishing Iran through sanctions because of real or imagined activities surrounding Iran’s nuclear program (and alleged ambitions).
Suddenly, the West, particularly the US, wants to be Russia’s new pal. And surely it is not because of the coming talks with Iran at the start of October in Turkey! They are the same talks in which Iran must bow to the West and surrender its sovereignty, or face a fourth round of sanctions. And remember, the EU has said it will go it alone without the UN Security Council this time – the most powerful sanction is the cut exports of refined fuels to Iran. Tehran, in turn, will very likely claim this act would be an existential threat to Iran’s security. This is the path to confrontation and Russia wants to have nothing to do with it.
Russia will not join with the West to make unreasonable demands of Tehran irrespective of Washington’s future anti-missile plans. Russia believes in direct engagement of Tehran and at the same time does not want to see Iran develop a deployable nuclear weapon. Russia will continue to respect the opinions of the IAEA regarding Iran’s nuclear program. I use the word ‘respect’ and not the word ‘follow’ because a great deal of the IAEA’s intelligence comes from the Americans and the Israelis (and it is the Israelis who first and foremost hope to con its Western friends into acting against Iran as a cover for Israel to complete its annexation of the West Bank, thus making a Palestinian state impossible).
Allow me to reiterate a point: Russia does not want to see Tehran develop a nuclear weapon that could threaten Iran’s neighbors and beyond. However, Russia worst nightmare is a Western-sponsored war against Iran. About two million ethnic Azaris in the north of the country could opt to find refuge in neighboring Azerbaijan, threatening the very existence of this fragile state. The knock-on impact for the rest of the region and the post-soviet space would be devastating. Western mainstream media constantly repeat that Russia overly meddles in the affairs of its neighbors, but if Russia’s neighbors go to hell in a hand basket it is Russia that is left to pick up the pieces.
Russia has no intention of bailing out the US in the Greater Middle East. And Russia will have nothing to do with the West attacking and/or invading a third Muslim country. The West should stop looking for ways to contain and destroy the Islamic Republic. There must be honest and constructive engagement on the part of all parties. In my opinion, the first item on the table should be the complete nuclear disarmament of the entire Greater Middle East and that includes Israel. We should start struggling for peace in this region of the world and not preparing for another senseless war. This is an agenda Russia can support.
09 November, 2009, 20:41
Guistino,
just a passing summary. I do not blame you for not reading the lengthy debates between Marzipan6 and myself.
You must have missed a lot, otherwise you could not have come to a conclusion that both of us seek to establish collective guilt. While I am the last person to speak up for Marzipan6, and in spite of his/her generalizations, I did not feel that he/she was arguing for collective guilt. Rather, I felt that Marzipan6 felt that Russia owed Estonia an appology for WWII. While Estonia did not owe Russia any appologies.
That was the on-going argument. I have provided sufficient information to show that Estonia's expectation of appologies is misplaced. But I had to go through a virtual sea of historic romanticism to get to that point.
Getting back to the concept of collective guilt. If you read even half of what I wrote, you will never say something like that. So, I can recaputulate some of my oft expressed feelings on the matter.
Not only that I never felt that Estonians are collectively guilty for broad participation in support of Hitler's war effort, I said just the opposite. I completely understand Estonia's support for Hitler, given its geographic position, size and strength. I did not blame Estonians who participated in fighting Soviets, mined their escaping ships with tens of thousands civilians aboard, participating in Nazi invasion of Soviet Union, helping Finland in its proxy war on behalf of Hiter against Soviet Union, and all other decisons that people make when the war is upon them. I never even blamed Germans for accepting the promises of greatness by a populist manipulator. I have never blamed Germans for trying to survive the cruel punishment at the end of WWI.
I do not care if the Nazi uniforms are dusted off for a march of veterans. I brought issues only as a means of removing romantic gloss from Marzipan6 writings. None of this really matters.
But what matters is when today politicians try to profit from history. This is where Estonian leadership has made many mistakes, and continues to provoke Russia. Russia has proven more then amply that it is not hung up on past. German-Russian relationship is a living proof of nations being able to build trust and better future for new generations.
But it cannot do it with those countries whose leadership is trying to score political points, or even blame Russia for fighting Hitler's Germany. And Estonia has found itself in that predicament.
In WWII Estonia and Russia were on the opposite sides of the battle.
Marzipan6 in the last posting put it best. Estonian participation in Hitler's war effort were based on Estonian desire not to be occupied by Soviet Union. Estonian military operations against Soviet Army therefore costs Soviets hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians. Marzipan6 absolutely proves my point. Hitler's occupying forces were the pillar of the Estonian sense of security against Soviet Union.
Unfortunately for Estonia, it happened to be on the wrong side of history. No matter what justifications, explanations or righeous definitions we may use today, Hitler's efforts to occupy Europe, and take battle to distant parts of the world, had to be stopped. Soviet Union had a single, uncomplicated reason to fight Hitler. He came to their land, killed their people, destroyed their cities, villages, cultural heretage and industrial base. He had to be expelled from there, and pursued till the end.
Soviet Union was fighting Nazism, and that meant anybody else whose flags flew alongside Nazi flag. Estonia became the victim by association.
Estonia's insistence on discussing the history from the perspective of a victim of Soviet Union, is therefore not only historically ridiculous, but lacks common decency.
Estonia like many other nations made decisions in the fratricidal European bloodletting. Regarless of the reasons for joining Hitler under his flag, the end of Hitler's Europe resulted in the divided continent.
The end of the Cold War signified the unique opportunity for establishing new relationships and leaving the divided Europe behind. Nations that successfully bridge the transition will prosper, others may end up being a museum of their own past. In that museum, nations stuck in the past will forever try to build exhibits that prove how their war-time alliance with Hiter did not really mean support of Nazism. As if it makes any difference.
One can hope that Russian-German relationship can help East Europe and Baltic countries find a good mechanism for building new ties with Russia. This is what neighbors are supposed to do. I hope for the day we can honor all dead soldiers and reflect on their humanity, and the life that was cut short due to human folly.
08 October, 2009, 12:45
Here are some errors of fact from Bianca’s last several posts.
(1) I have never insisted that “the whole history of WWII was black and white,” with the SU being “black” and the Western allies being “white”. I have pointed out how the foolishness of the West, from Versailles to Munich, contributed much to the outbreak of war, and how at Yalta the West sold the Baltics into Soviet slavery at Yalta. I have never criticized Russia’s defence of its homeland, and have credited it with a major role in defeating Nazism. And I have readily acknowledged that some Estonians participated in German war crimes, though never as an expression of government policy. Unfortunately the black-and-white theory seems to be embraced by Russia – it is “white” only, while Estonia, which did not have a side at all in the War and was neutral for as long as its sovereignty lasted, is cast as “black”.
(2) I have never said that “Russians need to be indicted for their past sins”. I have said that if Russia wants to have normal relations with a whole arc of surrounding nations, it needs to finally let go of Stalin’s 1940’s era lies and distortions about Soviet actions in regard to its neighbours and seek reconciliation and partnership with them rather than maintaining positions that are offensive.
(3) Estonia was not “highly Germanized before the onset of WWII”. Whereas Germany had exported some of its culture and architecture to Estonia through the centuries of the Baltic Barons’ influence, it had also exported a very strong anti-German sentiment as a result of the feudalism it had practised there. Any Estonian will tell you that. Only book-bound theorists might tell you something else. Estonia had only just finished a very bitter War of Independence against Germany, and victory in a decisive battle against the Landeswehr had become Estonia’s annual Victory Day. To say that Estonia was emotionally “Germanized” is ignorant nonsense.
(4) There was no enthusiasm, infections or otherwise, in pre-War Estonia over Hitler’s success in rebuilding Germany. Only worry, as the storm-clouds deepened.
(5) Estonians volunteered for military service in Finland because Estonia had already yielded to Soviet Russia without so much as firing a shot. Moscow had disbanded Estonia’s army, and fighting to defend Finland was the only way at the time that Estonians could resist their Eastern invader.
(6) Finland was not “conducting a proxy war on behalf of Hitler.” Instead, Finland was the victim of unprovoked Soviet aggression in 1939, at a time when Russia was not even at war with Germany, and would not be for about two more years. Russia was simply trying to claim Finnish territory which its Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany assigned to it. After war between Russia and Germany did break out in 1941, Finland saw this as an opportunity to push Russia out of occupied Finnish territory, and seek revenge for 1939. But Bianca must live in a time machine if she thinks that this had anything at all to do with Estonia in 1939-40.
(7) Bianca asks, “Was there anything wrong with Estonians’ overwhelmingly supporting Germany?” This assumes that they did, and reality is that they did not. They overwhelmingly opposed Russia’s invasion and occupation of their homeland and service in the German military was the most direct way of expediting that opposition.
(8) I am not aware that Estonians “marched along with Hitler’s forces into Russia” at all. I don’t believe any Estonians “marched with Hitler’s forces” until towards the end of 1942 by which time the tide of the battle had turned, German forces were bogged down in Russia, and on the threshold of marching out of there, and “inferior peoples” were admitted into the now hard-pressed German military. It was the Red Army that was then preparing to march back into Estonia, to continue its atrocities of 1940-41. That’s when significant number of Estonians started fighting in German uniform.
(9) While Estonia does not need to apologise for killing Russian soldiers who invaded their country or who were on their way to doing so again, it did need to apologise for those relatively few of their people who participated in German war crimes, and indeed has done so.
(10) While “Denmark never blamed anyone for their WWII decisions,” neither does Estonia. It simply states what it did and why it did it, when countering slanderous allegations. Also, if Denmark’s invader had claimed to this day that Denmark freely and legally joined the Third Reich and that there never even was a German occupation of their country, if the Nazi Party was still represented in the German Parliament, if the swastika was still a symbol of honour in Germany, if Hitler polled as the third most-popular German today, if a Railway station in Berlin was just refurbished complete with engraved quotations f rom Mein Kampf, if the Chancellor was a Gestapo officer and former Gestapo personnel held the key to power in Germany, I think Denmark’s attitude towards its Large Neighbour might be a little different today. Perhaps even a little like the Baltic countries’ attitude towards their Large Neighbour.
(11) Concentration camps in Estonia were established and overwhelmingly run by that country’s German occupiers, with Estonians having only very little practical involvement, and even less policy say-so. Estonians are about as responsible for those camps as Poles are for Auschwitz. Still there was some involvement, and once again, Estonia has apologised for this, even though none of it had been an expression of its own government policies.
(12) History is valid if it excludes fictions posing as facts, and arranges actual facts in a context that correlates with the living memory of the people whom it seeks to explain. Otherwise it is a political or intellectual instrument whose aim is something other than shedding light on events.
08 October, 2009, 09:57
Bianca,
Regarding "Innocent Lambs"
The central issue with both your and Marzipan's posts is that you are approaching the discussion from the concept of nationality and applying collective guilt or innocence to nations based on the participation of some people of certain ethnicities in a 70-year-old conflict.
I reject the concept of collective guilt. I think the idea of drawing up lists of "good" and "bad" nations, not even states but nationalities, is just another perverted offshoot of radical European nationalism.
I reject it even at the microlevel. If my cousin commits a crime, it does not make me a criminal.
So I do not believe today's Russians are guilty of anything, other than the vets of that conflict that might actually have committed crimes against humanity. Nor do I think Estonians are collectively guilty of the Holocaust or war crimes.
I am interested in the role of states, not nationalities. The Estonian state, which was broken by the Soviets in 1940, had its faults. But starting the Second World War and orchestrating the Holocaust or Soviet mass deportations were not among them. Those faults belong to the so-called Great Powers of the day.
Regarding "Germans and Russians and Finns"
Estonia does have strong cultural links with Germany. But in 1939, the Germans were still seen as the historical enemies of the Estonian people, though the state may have seen the Soviets as a greater threat to Estonian independence. I mean, we're talking about 800 years or so of a bad relationship with Germany. When the Baltic Germans were removed to the Reich in 1939, it was seen positively in Estonia.
The largest minority in prewar Estonia was, like it is today, the Estonian Russians. 8 percent of the population was Russian in 1934. Germans were 1.5 percent of the population. Estonian Russians played a role in serving both occupying powers.
Estonia was and always has been supportive of Finnish independence. One could argue that without the model of Finland, I would not be living in an independent state right now. President Päts actually lived at the Finnish embassy in Tallinn. Still, the Finns tried to rouse the Estonians to resist the Soviet bases pact. The Estonian leadership declined to resist together with Finland. They thought they had made the wiser choice by giving in to Soviet demands.
Regarding "Equals Signs"
From the vantage point of the state, there is an equals sign. There was one independent state called Estonia. Two great powers sought to extinguish its existence. Those two states were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The key word is independence. From the state's perspective, retaining that was the most important objective. The ideological battle between fascism and communism wasn't as much a factor because the pre-war government decision makers were of neither persuasion.
In summary, I do not blame nationalities for "collective" crimes. I do not believe that a German born in 2009 is responsible for something that happened in 1939. Who is responsible? The decision makers of that state and the individuals that carried out those crimes are. The Estonian state has condemned its citizens that took part in war crimes or crimes against humanity.
The first thing Jüri Uluots, seen as the representative of the state, did when the Germans began to retreat in 1944 was appoint a new government and attempt to reestablish the state. That's because as I said, the key word is independence.
It's hard for the former Great Powers to understand that. In their grand narrative, there are only two sides. There's no third or fourth or fifth side. Never mind that the great war, with all its so-called moral lessons for mankind, was actually just as messy and confusing as any other human conflict.
08 October, 2009, 03:37
Giustino, I am then doubly disappointed! I thought you would be able to see "through" my "spin", and figure it out! I will help you...
I had to suffer reading numerous posts on RT sounding like a broken record, insisting that the whole history of WWII was black and white. And the "black" was Soviet Union, with its gulags and Stalin, while "white" were totally innocent lambs, taken to the slaughter of WWII. And having been tortured by the "black" Soviets, they naturally had fallen into the ranks of Nazi's. Otherwise, they would have naturally, and with great enthusiasm joined their "Brits" and other Western, somewhat misguided, but well meaning "democracies".
And now, that the lamb is free to speak, Russians will have to be indicted for their past sins, and lamb restored to its innocence.
If this black and white narrative is not sufficient, we are given other interpretations of the worlds of democracy and the eternal idealism of the West. I do not know how can one stand it without nausea.
Call it spin if you wish, I call it adding historical facts, reality check, and some real life color with examples, into this black and white cartoon.
However, if someone you debate insists on not hearing, you have to hammer each point separately with data and more data, to insure that the point is not lost. I had tried at first, to show balance and complexity, but it was a waste of time. So, once I prove my point, I can step back on the ballancing beam. Not before.
What I find interesting about your style is the curious positioning of an EQUAL SIGN. You bring valid points, things that add even more color and complexity to the picture. So, you stay away from the black and white, but then you slam with the curious EQUAL SIGN.
Example. You bring up a very valid point; during the one-year occupation of Estonia from June 1940, the communists were the loyalists to Soviet occupation authority. So, in this equation, what is the point in talking about Estonia during its Nazi collaborator state phase? The curious EQUAL SIGN, makes the point seem moot.
Depending on the occupant, you posit, their supporters and sympathizers come forward and are rewarded. The problem with this math? Estonia was highly Germanized before the onset of WWII. At the time Estonian serfs were liberated, there was a large population of Baltic Germans, as well as Germanized Estonians. The enthusiasm for Hitler's success in rebuilding Germany was infectious, while the level of volunteering in Finish-Russian war was high. Even though even today some are trying to portray that war as "Russian aggression", historians know better. Finland was conducting a proxy war on behalf of Hitler, and became a bona fide ally later in the war. It was well known that Estonians provided intelligence on Russian planes, and flights. Tens of thousands Estonians volunteered in that war. Many of those, I believe around 30,000 responded for a mobilization call later in 1944, and came accross the Gulf of Finland to join Nazi ranks.
Was there any comparable degree of Russified population and other enthusiastic popular support for Russia? I do not think so. No doubt that there were intellectual supporters of communism in Estonia. There were many in Germany as well.
But you cannot put an EQUAL SIGN, and call it a day.
Was there anything wrong with Estonians overwhelmingly supporting Germany? Soviet Union went through revolutionary convulsions, as the revolution ate its children.
So, Estonia supported Hitler's effort by fighting Soviets on its territory, by fighting for Hitler in Finland, and by marching along with Hitler's forces into Russia. And none of this would be discussed today, if Estonia and some others did not come up with a brilliant idea --- bad Russians made them do it. And they, the Russians, need to apologize for killing Estonians, while it would never occur Estonians that they likewise need to apologize for killing even more Russians and other peoples of Soviet Union. Kazahstan is just as angry with Estonians as Russians are. Kazakhstan's parliament has on more then one occasion supported Russia when attacked for its WWII role in anti-Hitler alliance.
No equal signs please. Some intellectual communists, along with some communist opportunist --- do not make a credible case of Estonian enthusiasm for Soviets, the way it was demonstrated and fought --- for Germans.
There was nobody that could have given Estonia any assurances. Europe has fallen, and England on the ropes. US outside the war arena. Estonia seemed to have sought protection, along with other Baltic states, in legally spelled out neutrality.
But with the proxy war already in their neighborhood, the neutrality was aimed more at limiting what Soviet forces could do, then preventing Finland from launching attacks from its territory. With the war on their doorstep, all the lofty ideals of sovereignty, independence and neutrality were swept by the winds of change. And the change in the mood overwhelmingly favored Germany.
And what about Denmark? Denmark never blamed anybody for their WWII decisions. And we would not be here discussing Estonia if Estonia took responsibility for their decisions, and stop seeking the approval for their heroic killing of Russians. That may have sounded good while Hitler's forces were backing them up. Now, there is clearly an audience to play to, or else Poland and Baltics would not have come up with this new and improved events of WWII, featuring Stalin in the leading villain role, and :Hitler only in a supporting role.
There were many an Estonia that understood the pathology of Hitler's ideas. There were many Germans that understood it. In fact, many in Hitler's leadership understood that throwing away the ideas of European union was a mistake. Hitler believed in power, and the need to end the war on his terms. Many around him understood that forging strong alliances with occupied lands would have produced a more solid geopolitical basis. Hitler resisted the ideas to the end.
However, those with vision were in minority. The majority in Germany, and indeed in Baltics, believed in Hitler's magic and the record of concrete accomplishments. Until it backfired.
Small Estonia had 22 concentration camps. It was Judenfrei. The previously neutral leadership implored population to respond to the call for a draft to join Nazi fighting forces. And the response was overwhelming. Was it all about trying to prevent Soviets from returning? Some of it, yes. But not completely. With Hitler's forces loosing ground, the determination to fight and help Germany to the end was just as strong a motivator. It was not black and white.
Now, the quote from Pravda is really special. Pravda is spinning a story for its audience to boost morale by portraying the pro-allied support in Estonia stronger then it was. These pro-allied groups are credited with viewing the occupation by Germans as enslavement of smaller nations! But even Pravda had to contain its excessive enthusiasm for the "Estonian intelligentsia", by admitting that the ruling circles were "trying to remain neutral".
A very positive way of saying --- we do not stand a chance there!!!
So, you are engaging in a little spinning for my benefit, by using a Pravda spin story. Clever, but disingenuous.
07 October, 2009, 21:12
Marzipan6,
You could not have made a more fitting argument for what I was trying to accomplish. It is really true that a collective memory is the comfort level human beings eventually find in recalling the past. In that recollection, some data is burned in memory, other lost forever. I do not doubt the personal side, and personal interpretations. The world is filled with them, and they bring us comfort and peace. But what is dangerous is taking our collective, harmonized story, and trying to replace the accumulated data on recent history. In it, we are not only clashing with other people, and their own comfortable story, but also with many, many unpleasant facts. Once you start that, you may learn that it is best to let the sleeping murder lie. Digging it up, you may discover what you do not want to know. And find out, that it is you that may have to apologize to others, if you want them to apologize to you.
07 October, 2009, 19:01
Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Georgia stated:
"We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is."
The manner in which control of the monetary system is being used to control, manipulate, and own us is far more than absurd, it is criminal insanity. The ugly truth is that it has been working very well for the elite for a very long time, and is under no threat.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836) said: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
07 October, 2009, 12:30
I have grown up in a family who lived in pre-war and wartime Estonia, and who then fled to the West, and in families people talk freely. I have had many uncles and aunts, many older cousins, some older siblings all of whom also spent their childhood in Estonia. There were many Estonian friends of the family, and I know many Estonians both in Estonia (including close relatives) and abroad, and have travelled numbers of times to that country and seen it for myself. I have lost track of how many conversations I have heard as a child and as an adult, of Estonians talking freely about matters relating to the subjects of our discussion here. I have also read many Estonian books, both historical and novels in which historical attitudes are mirrored.
In short, I believe I am not lying when I say that I have a direct, comprehensive and first-hand knowledge of the country, its people and its attitudes, and direct access to its history.
Throughout all of this I have never come across the attitudes, motives and dispositions which Bianca so confidently ascribes to Estonians through her academic theories. These are completely foreign to me and to my circle of actual and virtual acquaintances. On this basis of personal experience I know that Bianca’s interpretations simply do not match reality. They are wrong.
Since Bianca does not have my experience, nor the concurring experience of 1 million other Estonians, she has only some other external framework or orientation with which to line up the selective facts which she gathers. It kind of reminds me of some complex mathematical models that astronomers of bygone centuries devised through which to explain the movement of the heavenly bodies as they perceived them. The most famous of these models had a central stationary Earth surrounded by many transparent rotating “shells” that carried the sun, moon and the planets, with the stars forming a solid screen background. Very complex mathematical formulae were developed that actually were able to account for the observed movement of the planets within such a scheme. Only trouble was, that even though mathematically consistent, they were factually wrong. The truth was much simpler – and much more complex – than a stationary Earth surrounded by rotating transparent shells.
So it is with Estonia and WW2. But Bianca’s theories will not show this to her, and she does not believe the experience of the people themselves. So I guess she will never know.
07 October, 2009, 10:26
Bianca,
Thanks for your response.I am disappointed again that you do not even mention the roles of Estonians in collaboration with the Soviets.
You set up Estonia as a Nazi collaborator state with an Estonian civil administration, and Estonian SS division, and ignore that under Soviet rule there was a an Estonian-led Communist government, that there was an Estonian Rifle Corps within the Red Army and that, yes, Estonians took part in the deportation and murder of their own fellow citizens throughout the Soviet period.
Depending on the facts provided, your argument can be simple reversed and indeed it was. In Soviet historiography, Estonia was not the fascist collaborator state -- it was the younger brother that sought Soviet protection from the Germans in 1940.
What I see is that, depending on what country's troops were present on its soil, there were willing accomplices ready to do as ordered.
Had any other country occupied Estonia, it would have been the same way. If the Italians had occupied Estonia, I am sure the chair if Italian studies at the university would have been given an offer he couldn't refuse. Minister of education perhaps? Or how about rector of the university? Why do people collaborate? For very human reasons -- money, access to material comforts, prestige.
Many of the members of the Estonian Communist leadership had been marginalized prior to 1940, or even in jail for taking part in the Soviet-orchestrated 1924 coup. When the Soviets came in, their social status skyrocketed. Johannes Vares went from being a poet and doctor to prime minister! Nigol Andresen went from being a schoolmaster to foreign minister! Talk about a promotion. I am sure it was the same for the gentlemen who abetted the German occupation authorities. The rest of the country was on rationing, but the head of the civil administration, Hjalmar Mäe, ate well. he looks overweight in those photos where he gives the Nazi salute.
I enjoy reading your spin, though, Bianca. I wonder that, if Estonia was a so-called Nazi state, then so was Denmark.. It also had its puppet leaders and SS units. At the same time, I believe that, if the Red Army proceeded to occupy Denmark in 1945, after deporting or executing the royal family and shooting the parliament, after exporting all Danish 'kulaks' and 'class enemies' to Siberia, they would have found some willing Communists or left-wing Social Democrats to become head the communist party in the Danish People's Republic.
And history would have to be rewritten again to emphasize the positive role of the occupying force.
Finally, as for pro-British, pre-war sentiment, you can ask the Communists yourself. I refer you to a May 28, 1940 editorial in Pravda:
"A certain part of the Estonian intelligentsia regards the occupation of Norway and Denmark by the Germans as an aggression, as an enslavement of small nations. This part of the intelligentsia preaches a loyal attitude towards England and expresses its hatred of Germany and everything German... The ruling circles of Estonia are trying to remain neutral with regard to the events in the west... The Estonian Press likewise tries to avoid awkward problems and emphasizes its loyalty towards England."
07 October, 2009, 10:18
Bogdanov, if there is some error of fact that you (or anyone) pick up in posts, upon factually demonstrating that error to me I will always promise to acknowledge and rescind it. In the current instance I notice some contrary opinions, but no dispute of facts. I also carefully looked again in your post of 05 October for the words that you are “familiar not only with the work of Soviet and Russian historians, but also, with the work of many foreigners, anti-Russian including,” but I must confess that I did not find those words. The words that I did find I quoted exactly in the opening paragraph of my post of 06 October, and it was to those words that I addressed my comments.
Russia is an enormous and diverse country, and oversimplifications regarding it would certainly be dangerous. My comments in general, and in the post to which you refer in particular, do not attempt to analyse Russia in entirety, as that would be well nigh impossible. They address only one typical characteristic of the country, namely its distorted grasp of history, and suggest valid reasons for it. I do not mean to represent that every person in Russia, let alone every Russian in the world, necessarily shares that distortion. But enough Russians do to where it characterises Russia’s position in general.
At a press conference in Moscow in May of 2007, in response to a question from an Estonian reporter President Putin gave an account of Estonian history that can only be described as grotesque. He, the Russian Foreign Minister and members of the Duma regularly make public comments about Estonia that simply fly in the face of facts that Estonians and the world at large know and accept. From time to time members of the Duma visit Estonia – the comments some of them make about the country whilst there display both terrible ignorance and terrible manners. The Estonian media report comments that aren’t readily available from other sources made by Russian officials and Russian media about Estonia, and many of them are bizarre and antagonistic. Meanwhile, last year Russians voted Stalin by only a narrow deficit margin into being the third greatest “Russian” of all time. All this speaks of a chronically misshapen Russian view of history.
Not without cause, so many of Russia’s neighbours find precisely its take on history to be a point of major offence and a major stumblingbloc preventing good relations from developing. These countries are not in collusion together or in some kind of anti-Russian conspiracy. Many of them are quite different one from the other. The relevant commonality they have is their experience of Russia, past and present.
I do not believe that “Russians are cattle who are kept in the barn and not capable of doing things on their own,” and I have never said this. I suggest that this assessment by you, not my posts, is an emotional response. I believe that Russians are talented and competent people, and that many of them are very, very lovely human beings. But I also believe it is unrealistic to think that the generations-long damage which their nation suffered under toxic Communist rule either can be or has been overcome in less than two short decades. For as long as this damage remains unhealed, Russia’s neighbours will suffer aberrant Russian behaviour.
07 October, 2009, 08:03
Bogdanov,
I agree the issue is complex, especially trying to understand the policies of the Communists in Moscow. Communism seems to have been wiped from the memory of those decades. But, back then, from what I have read, the Great Patriotic War was not a Russian war, it was an ideological, Soviet war. The 'homeland' was not Russia, it was the Soviet Union, though geographically, these things do mostly overlap.
Nobody knows how to remember the Soviet Union. We've become so divorced from Soviet Communism that it even seems silly to take it into account when discussing history.
That's sort of the central issue.
07 October, 2009, 07:56
Giustino,
There is really nothing that you are adding to this discussion. Marzipan6 has reached the end of the line, and you are rehashing the same points.
You have brought some points, and I will be happy to respond. Your tone and manner tells me that you are not interested in an open-forum history debate. Once the flowery language takes over, it is down-hill from there.
To wit, Marzipan6 writes: "Soviets were burtal, murderous and thoroughly illegal invaders". Hitler's invasion was described as "...less savage enemy". Does not this tell you all you need to know?
The number of adjectives one adds after the noun, does not impress a historian. Murderous and brutal? And is there a category of "legal" invader, or an invader that is not quite "thoroughly" illegal. That is what I have to plough through, to get to the substance. And Hitler's invasion that was "less savage" tells the story. His invasions elsewhere, including the invasion of Russia, were savage on a scale that Marzipan6 avoids to talk about. I have tried to bring in some reality to this largely fluff-fest, but to no avail. So, to insure you get it --- Hitler's armies were out there to exterminate Slavs of Russia and some other parts of Europe. You know the numbers, I will not bother you with them. And I have brought some numbers from Balkans, just from one small region of Kozara mountain, documenting how many children were murdered. Marzipan6, and apparently yourself, choose to be blind and deaf, and these facts do not fit the "less savage" invador. There was a selectivity to his extermination plans, but historians are running away from conclusions as the devil from the incense. Spare me, and others, your violins on the most ever, ever, ever, ever brutal AND murderous Soviet invader. Estonia has not seen or fetl the REAL brutality; this is why you can write about it in such flowery language.
1. Estonian Government prior to 1940 was officially neutral, but basically pro-Western allies;
Not true. Estonian Government was officially neutral, but was not banking on pro-Western allies. Prior to 1940, it was hardly clear who those allies were. To think that it was even remotely clear at that time that there was going to be a meaningfull alliance --- is a stretch. In the looming confrontation that everybody saw coming, it did not look good for Britain. And for others, even less so. At that time, US was not even in the picture. And nobody, absolutely nobody, saw US-British-Soviet alliance coming.
Population was in a great number pro-German. Partially, due to the dislike of Soviet Union and the horrors unfolding there, but also to a great extent, just admiring the job Hiter did in resurrecting Germany from ashes. These were real, and sincere feelings, and it is a historic rubbish to try to deny it. Again, and again, I do not find it unusual. And I will certainly not use flowery language, such as "despicable" and "horrible". I find it real, and fitting with the circumstances of the time.
2. Estonians saw Brits (how cute and cuddly this sounds) and other western allies as the only power that could guarantee their sovereignty after the war.
Not possible. Regardless of rethoric. What other "western allies" are we speaking off prior to 1940? And what other "western allies" are we speaking off from the beginning of 1940 till the mid-year, and the fall of France? Or a year from then, when Germany declared the war on Soviet Union? Europe subjugated, Britain struggling, and US nowhwere near the decision to enter the war. There were no Western-allies in the picture.
However, Estonia, in spite of the neutrality declared in 1939, was involved in supporting proxy Hitler war against Soviet Union. It is simply not a secret that Finland was, on behalf of Hiter, testing Soviet Union's Baltic defenses. Estonia was involved by sending a large number of volunteers, as well as intelligence. From September 1939 to June 1940, these activities intensified, and at that time involved large scale intelligence and sabotage in support of Finland's efforts. Again, and again, the flowery "brotherly" love and support it may have been --- but it was factually in support of Hiter's poking and probing the Baltics. Political and military leaders of Estonia knew it.
This was going on before Soviet Union occupied Baltic states, following the fall of France. All that before occupation related attrocities occured.
3. Estonians thought that the war was going to end with German defeat? I have never found a sliver of evidence to support this. And the reality of that time, did not support this. In fact, anybody that waited for the 1940 to be rung in, did not believe it. Quite the contrary. Germany was on its way to win the war. As the 1940 rolled on, European countries folded one after the other, all in the matter of days. And when France fell, all of the continental Europe was Hitler's playground.
4. You object to me calling Estonia a Nazi-state. This seems to be a well-rehearsed defense: Estonia was not a state at the time! Neither was Yugoslavia. It was broken up into many entities; some became Hiter collaborators, others occupied. Yet accross the chopped up country, one of the largest resistance movement in Europe took shape. In spite of collaborator state of Croatia, and many pro-Hitler divisions in Bosnia and Albania.
Estonia has all the characteristics of collaborator state. Its officials coordinated with German army the process of expelling Soviets from Estonia. Estonian units were doing all the work, while Hitler's forces waited to finish the job.
The German commander in charge of Estonia was to conduct Germanization, and to remove all the non-Germanized population into special areas. This early Hitler's triumph was his undoing. Estonians, who were eagerly awaiting Germany's advance to the East were disappointed at the less then cordial relationship. But that was only at the earliest stage. Soon aferwards, the process of tighter collaboration developed. Estonian self-adminsitration, Directorate [according to the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of the Crimes Against Humanity] exercised a significant measure of autonomy within the framework of German policy, political, racial and economic. They exercised their powers pursuant to the laws and the regulations of the Republic of Estonia. With 22 concentration camps for the extermination of Jews and others brought from outside of Estonia, the significant local participation in the crimes against humanity occurred. The only trials were conducted during the period Estonia was part of Soviet Union. Cold War, and the neo-Cold War insured that Estonia did not get the scrutiny normally applied to such collaborationist regimes. Similarly to Croatia, Estonia managed to avoid most of its responsibilities.
Alfred Rosenberg, Reich Minister for Occupied East, a Baltic German born and raised in Tallinn declared that Estonians were the most Germanic of all the people in Baltic area. He was in charge of Germanization, coloniztion and deportation of unsuitables to Peipusland. Skipping over the formation of Estonian SS military formations, let's go to the February of 1944, when Juri Uluots, the last constitutional Prime Minister of the Republic of Estonia delivered a radio address asking all the able bodied men to report to military service in the SS. The conscripts jammed the registation centers, and the number reached over 70,000. This expanded the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian). Finland left the war on September 1944 under the Peace Agreement with Soviet Union. Volunteers from Finland returned to Estonia and joined the SS forces.
What is remarkable about the Estonian expectations, is the sense of its "specialness". First, the message was sent to Western allies to come to their defence, now the defence against the advancing Soviet Army and the retreating German army. But as they were fighting under Nazi flag, no help was forthcoming. As a historical curiosity, on what basis did Estonia expect such a miracle? Then, a radio address was sent to advancing Soviets asking for a peace treaty! In light of the visciousness with which the war was prosecuted in Baltics, and the siege of Stalingrad, it was very naive to expect such turn of events. Estonian goverment was confused throughout the WWII period. It did not take into consideration its neighbor, Soviet Union. It may have dreamed of some possible far-away miracle to grant them independence, but knowing that the lights were fading across Europe. There was so much excitement about the role of Germany in the united Europe, but what followed was a disappointment that Germany did not accord them a more priviledged position. As Germans started having difficulties, all eforts were made to shore up Germany and its defences. As the things went from bad to worse, while fighting allies (Soviets), Estonia started pleading to Britain/US to be defended against Soviets. That did not fly, as allies stuck together in fight against Germany. And then, finally figuring it out, Estonia issued the call to have a peace treaty with Soviet Union. There is a strange sense of entitlement that Estonia felt at the time. As if all the sides in the conflict somehow owed them something; as if somebody was going to rescue them from themselves.
Today is not much different. Estonia is very comfortable with the role-playing. Now, it has forgotten its failed WWII dreams, and is interpreting its entire history through assignment of its own mistakes and guilt on the sins of Soviet Union.
And yes, Germany recognized Croatia, after Vatican. It is not at all strange. Think of the post 1989 triumphalism in US, and the way it went about "leading" Europe. Balkan wars were Clinton wars; the mess, the lies and deceptions were all his. The importation of foreign soldiers, from the Middle East or from Argentina --- were all his grand plan. Europe, and especially Germany after reunification, were unsure of themselves, and tried hard, very hard, to be agreeable to the trans-Atlantic partner. Germany couldn't visualize at that time that a new category, "new Europe", will soon become an expression of anti-European interests. Much was not clear then. That is not the picture today.
Also, you are right, Russians do not see Germans as enemies. But it is not about the money. You will see the same phenomena in Balkans. Serbs, that paid the heaviest price in Hitler's Balkan wars, are not in the least seeing Germans as enemies.
You see, enemies have something in common. They both put their everything on the line. Somebody had to win and somebody had to loose. But at the end of it, both paid a dear price.
This is different from lover's disappointments, or calculated risk-takers.
This is why the former enemies feel much closer to each other, then those who were ambivalent about their role. Estonia and Croatia both courted Nazi regimes, hoping to gain from their power. As the things turned sour, they tried to burnish their pro-allies credentials, and the fact that some of them participated in resistance.
But it is a confused account, and the story unconvincing. Italy, for example, had a large resistance force, perhaps the largest in Europe. Yet, nobody will say today that Italy was not a Fascist state, and that it did not collaborate with Hitler. Its people were fighting on many a front with the German forces, just as Estonians and Croatians did. They were trusted, and accepted by Germany. This, for example was not the case with Serbian puppet government. There were no Serbian soldiers manning any German fronts --- they were occupied, not trusted and brutallized.
But when the war was over, those who knew who they were, had an easier time accepting that "other" as someone who also paid a heavy price.
My father was captured by Mussolini's forces and sent to Sicily prison. My mother carried a rifle from the age of fourteen, was wounded and survived. At the end of the war, my family --- along with many others --- housed a German prisoner of war. A man in his forties was a master carpenter. To pass the time, he made me a child's bed entirely of wood, without a single nail. My family and Germany made peace then. The war was over.
Estonia needs to end the war that eats it from inside. To embrace Germans and Russians, and all the bad blood among them. Let the dead sleep in peace.
06 October, 2009, 14:00
giustino. I am not questioning those things you are bringing on. They may be true, may be not, may be distorted. I cannot verify them. Neither do you. The best -- we could approach the understanding of those problems of the past if we are honest and open minded. Everything I was trying to say -- to advise you being more cautious with any generalizations and simplifications when you apply them to such complex country as Russia.
Marzipan6. You did it again. I already pointed out several times about this your weakness. Bianca, pointed out at this as well. You take the fact, make a snapshot of it, filter it out through the special prism of your prejudice perception, generalized it, color it black and white, and, then, make a lengthy argument and justifications based on this distorted picture. By the way, the more you do this the less credibility to your words I would have. In my quote, you missed an important part -- I said that I am familiar not only with the work of Soviet and Russian historians, but also, with the work of many foreigners (anti-Russian including). Remember? I have been living already for many years in the core of the Western world. Also, if you remember, I mentioned before, that I grew up in Kazakhstan. I would hardly call that place as a closed world. We had many foreigners there. We have good radio signals (I guess coming from Pakistan) of the Western stations. So, I was listening very often Voice-of-America and BBC. Plus, my primary "history books" are real people with their life stories and personal experience (you including). I have room for all of them in my head. Please, do not oversimplify things about Russia and Russians. By the way, your last paragraph was very disappointing. I refuse to believe that you think this way -- that Russians are cattle who is kept in the barn and not capable of doing things on their own. I think, that was just your emotional response.
06 October, 2009, 10:48
Bogdanov wrote, “Remember, that there are Russians here who had chance not only to study the history of their country for many years (in schools, colleges, free time) (including reading a lot of actual historical documents and watching documentary movies of Soviet and foreign origins), but, in fact, they were part of the Russian history themselves.”
Could I remind Bogdanov that according to a popular joke of the time amongst Soviet Russians themselves, Russia was considered the only country in the world whose past was unpredictable. Versions of its “history” kept changing, re-changing and changing again, depending on which clique of storytellers was in power at any given time. “History” also changed amongst the same players from time to time, depending on what need for which lies presented at any given stage of the game. Bogdanov should resist the temptation of thinking that when he reads the Soviets’ description of their own affairs or of those of the world around them, he is actually reading history. The same applies for post-Soviet “histories” that rely on Soviet sources.
Bogdanov also tells of those who were a part of Russian history themselves. In the Soviet era this means that they were part of a closed society with almost all physical and most intellectual contact with the outside world sealed off. They were people who knew nothing of what happening in the outside world apart from what Communist sources fed them. And who were brainwashed, with a mixture of terror, half-truths and mindless , all-pervasive, vacuous sloganeering, to consent to the one and only version of events, however zany, that was officially sanctioned and that provided the best hope for keeping them safe from the midnight knock on the door. In the post-Soviet era, those who were part of Russian history were people who lived – and live – in a society that quickly fell under the political control of ex-KGB/FSB operatives who underpinned the old Russia and who were scarcely motivated to shed light on their Soviet-era deeds, or those of the Soviet organizations they served. They live in a society whose new history texts are openly criticized by noted Russian historians as being political tools. And where access to national archives of the 1930s and 40s, in which prime data may be found, is increasingly restricted to all.
05 October, 2009, 18:12
Bogdanov,
Bianca is accusing the post-tsarist Baltic rim states of being anti-Soviet. I am showing that a country that had to a) fight a war to gain its independence against the Communists and b) had to put down a coup in 1924, organized by the Communists, and c) Was constantly at the center of a propaganda war from a Communist country whose clear motive was to eventually absorb it into the 'fraternal brotherhood' of Bolshevism, had several reasons to view Moscow as hostile to its independence.
And Stalin even had the Estonian communists liquidated in 1937 and 1938. All the major Estonians in Comintern starting with Jaan Anvelt -- executed as "enemies of the people."
That was the regime the Estonian politicians were dealing with back then. It was a regime where even the highest ranking politicians were put on show trials and shot, and not just the politicians, but their wives and children.
And there is some question about why these states did not care to have the troops of that state stationed on their territory?
The fate of Estonia's pre-war government shows that, if they were really so 'anti-Soviet' in attitude, they had every right to be -- only two members of the pre-war government survived to see 1943. The rest were killed by NKVD or died in the GULAG.
As for Stalin's speeches, I just finished reading a dissertation from the University of Bern on the USSR's ideological justification for expansion from 1921 to 1941. It meshes with interviews I have seen of old Estonians, who were told in 1940 that "a war with the West is not only inevitable, it is necessary."
05 October, 2009, 14:28
giustino wrote: "The Moscow-based Communists fought a war in 1918-1920 against pro-independence Estonian forces, and helped organize an attempted coup in 1924. The Communists in Moscow did not hide that their 'master plan' called for expansion to Europe in the next great war, followed by a global takeover in the war after that. Go read Stalin's speeches."
Wow, giustino! When you write something like this, please, remember, that you are being watched. Remember, that there are Russians here who had chance not only to study the history of their country for many years (in schools, colleges, free time) (including reading a lot of actual historical documents and watching documentary movies of Soviet and foreign origins), but, in fact, they were part of the Russian history themselves. What you wrote in this quote is a complete BS, as I see it. I strongly recommend you to re-read all Bianca's posts because they are much closer to that reality which I am aware of. And try to only to read them, but, more importantly, to precept the contents of those posts.
Also, every time you recommend to read someone's speeches, please, be more specific and clarify the context of those speeches. Because, if you go and read the speeches of, say, Lenin, you would find that he contradicts himself very often. The reason -- those speeches are useless without a context they were brought to life. The Bolshevik leaders where very strong and complex personalities. So were there lives and actions. Do not judge them using your primitive measuring ruler.
05 October, 2009, 09:49
I forgot to mention that many of the members of the Soviet destruction battalions in 1941 were ethnic Estonians. So, using Bianca's historiography, you could say that Estonians fought jointly with Hitler and Stalin to kill themselves.
This is one reason why WWII is not actually that important for Estonian identity. Sure, there's the feeling of collective loss, of being screwed by bigger countries. But the actual guts of what makes this nationality a nationality? The First World War and the Singing Revolution are far more important to Estonia. Those are the ones they won. Who wants to dwell on battles lost?
It's Russia that has the WWII cult. From the outside, it looks nutty. Then you realize that since Russia isn't a democracy, and public opinion is the only metric for its leader for life, the Putinists have to make sure to have the veterans and their extended families on their side.
In Estonia it's not too different. Remember, all those SS vets have families too. They don't want to think that grandpa was a criminal. They'll vote for the guy who says he was a hero. That's politics.
At the same time, nobody really talks about it. You guys see these memorials held on the Russian news because it's part of the Russian foreign ministry's propaganda menu for its citizens.
But within Estonia? I have lived here off and on for six years, and not one of my acquaintances has even mentioned it, other than to say that Estonia 'got it from both sides' in WWII. They tolerate the SS vets the same way they tolerate the Red Army vets -- with mild indifference -- ie. let them mourn in peace, preferably someplace far from main street.
Sure, there is one political party that has called the SS vets heroes. But Estonia also has other political parties that do not agree. So, each time a bill was written to proclaim the 20th Waffen SS 'freedom fighters,' it was voted down in parliament. So much for being a 'Nazi state.'
It's very interesting you mention Croatia, Bianca. As you know, a reunited Germany was the first country to recognize the independence of its former puppet state in 1991.
And yet Russians today do not see Germany as an enemy. Instead, they dislike these non-threatening states on their border for a variety of reasons related to their post-imperial complex. Why is that? Is it really because Germany is such a valuable customer? If so, we realize the true compass for Russian foreign policy: money.
05 October, 2009, 09:27
Bianca writes of Estonia being “a Nazi collaborator.” The standard dictionary definition of “collaborate” in the sense that Bianca uses it is, “to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, especially with an enemy occupying one's country.” The implication of this is that one is a traitor to, and working against the interests of one’s country, and for the interests of its enemy. This is a term that Soviet propaganda loves to apply to Estonia because according to the Stalinist lie which has Estonia willingly and legally joining the Soviet Union, the SU was Estonia’s country, and therefore anyone who fought against the Red Army must be a “collaborator”. Nothing – no thing – could be further from the truth. The Soviet Union was a brutal, murderous and thoroughly illegal invader, occupier and enemy of Estonia. In fighting the Red Army within the German military as some Estonians did, they were not betraying their country. They were fighting against their most savage enemy within the military of their less savage enemy, not to forward the military ambitions of the latter, but to save their families from murder and deportation at the hands of Stalin’s ghouls. Their hope was that the Eastern advance into Europe could be delayed until after the Western allies had won the war. That was the only chance that people like Estonians could have of not living under Soviet slavery for decades to come.
By the way, Bianca is no doubt unaware of the fact that when the Soviets occupied Estonia in 1941, all the ships of the Estonian merchant fleet that were abroad sailed to Britain, and made themselves available for war service with the British Merchant Navy, in which they served with distinction for the next four years. This greatly displeased Moscow, which ordered them to the Large Motherland – which order Estonian sailors ignored, because Russia was never their motherland.
Estonian units were not Nazis, did not swear allegiance to Hitler, did not wear SS insignia on their uniforms, did not even care particularly for anything German, and fought within the German military only because Russians had illegally – and brutally – disbanded their own army, and had already committed mass murder against their people. That was their only chance for national survival. Russia made a comparable choice in its effective alliance with Hitler under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact complete with its secret protocols, but we do not read of Bianca criticizing that.
For all the above reasons, Estonians find it particularly offensive to be called “Nazi collaborators.” Just as Finns find it extremely offensive to be described as fighting for Hitler. Finns fought for Finland, and they fought against Russia because Russia had first committed bloody and unprovoked aggression against them. Perhaps Bianca thinks the Finns should have presented Stalin with a bouquet of flowers, instead. Certainly she appears to think that Estonians should have.
Bianca writes, “You cannot deny that Estonians and Hitler, Jointly, killed hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.” I don’t know how many Soviet soldiers Estonians killed, but of those who invaded their country in 1940, and those who were on their way back in 1941 to continue Soviet terror against them, Estonians killed absolutely as many as they could. Estonians generally did not participate in German military expeditions in Russia until after the latter part of 1942 when Germany was already on the defensive. According to all historians other than Russian ones, and including Jewish historians, they fought honorably and well. Some indeed participated in German war crimes – no one has ever denied this. Even though these were terrible for the victims, the numbers of these events were small, nothing like Soviet hate-propaganda alleges. Bianca offers contrary opinions, but no contrary evidence. And avoids altogether the fact that Estonia has apologized for their crimes, but Russia has never apologized to Estonia for crimes that Russians committed against them under the Soviet flag. Go figure.
Bianca writes, “So while Europe was hoping somebody would stop the Nazi war machine, Estonians did everything to help that war machine.” This statement is offensive. I have talked to Estonians who fought within the German military; presumably Bianca has not. To a man they will tell you that they were not fighting for German war aims; they were fighting to forestall the return to their country of Soviet troops and their Red commissars, who had the unfortunate habit of mass-murdering Estonian civilians. Once Nazism was defeated, Western Europeans could be free. But for Central and Eastern Europeans, their terror and torment would continue unabated, only now at the hands of different monsters. This is why Estonians didn’t feel quite the same undiluted pleasure at Germany’s demise as Britons, for example. All it meant for Estonians, was that the Gestapo would stop savaging them, and the KGB would resume the sport.
Bianca jokes at the idea that Soviet Moscow’s more than triply exceeding permitted troop numbers under the bases agreement with Estonia, and increasing their numbers to something that was not far from 10% of the country’s entire population, was a breach of the agreement. Unfortunately, no Estonians with their understanding of Russia’s historical attitudes and actions towards their country can join with Bianca in her merriment. Nor have I read in any Estonian history, nor in any other authoritative history, that most of the deportees of 1941 returned to the country. Most died in Siberia. But even had they returned, if Bianca thinks this exonerates the Soviet Union from crimes against humanity, then she is mistaken. As for her jibe about Estonian “Nazi collaborators” boasting in re-unions about “how many Russian babies they killed,” any Estonian would find that particular jibe disgusting beyond words.
05 October, 2009, 08:50
This is a very complex topic. Some basic points:
a) The Estonian government prior to 1940 was officially neutral, but basically pro-Western allies, not pro-German or pro-Soviet.
b) The Estonians saw the Brits and other Western allies as the only powers that would guarantee their sovereignty after the war. The Estonians won their war of independence thanks partially to British naval assistance.
c) They believed that the Second World War would end like the first, with a German defeat in the west, and the West dictating terms to a defeated Germany, such as the restoration of Estonian independence.
d) The Moscow-based Communists fought a war in 1918-1920 against pro-independence Estonian forces, and helped organize an attempted coup in 1924. The Communists in Moscow did not hide that their 'master plan' called for expansion to Europe in the next great war, followed by a global takeover in the war after that. Go read Stalin's speeches.
e) It is extremely misleading to call a country that wasn't even a state in 1941 a 'Nazi state,' based on the cooperation of some Estonians with Nazi occupation authorities and the formation of an Estonian SS Division.
Bianca knows as well as anyone who has studied history in this part of the world, that there was an Estonian Rifle Corps with two divisions. One could just as easily call the country a 'Communist State.'
04 October, 2009, 14:01
Do you have a list of the ethnic composition of the government functionaries of the Estonian government during the Soviet period especially from the beginning in 39?
04 October, 2009, 07:09
Marzipan6, again digging that hole deeper. You think that all you have to do is deny the facts, play a littel verbal gymnastics, and everybody will believe that you are the the one with the facts on your side.
As I said, I have refuted every fact you claim you have. Estonia was a Nazi-collaborator, and a willing one. Estonia, unlike other Hitler-occupied countries did not have a token government, dictated to by Hiter's commanders. Estonia had a full-fledged support system for Nazi Eastern Front. It formed SS divisions, participated in attrocities in Russia, and is responsible for hundreds of thousands dead Russian soldiers and civilians.
Marzipan6, if you think that anybody will take you seriously when you say that Estonians did not committ crimes in Russia? How can you say this, and still be credible? Every military regiment that, along with Hitler's forces, crossed onto Russian territory committed horrendous crimes against Russian civilian population. Horrendous crimes. The entire villages, islands, townships --- disappeared. Millions have been murdered. I no longer believe you have any credibility when you avoid facing the crimes committed by Estonian soldiers. Or are you trying to say that ONLY German soldiers committed those crimes, while the soldiers of Nazi-collaborating countries that were sent to the Russian lands --- did not participate in those attrocities? This is a riduculous proposition. EVERY military formation that participated as a part of Hitler's coallition of the willing in raping, murder and plunder of Russia, is guilty. Equally guilty. What did Estonians do in Russia? Just held the candle to the German soldiers while they killed women and children by the thousands?
And do not play verbal gymnastics when talking about brotherhood with Finland. When debating here, stick to the issue at hand. Did anybody ever discussed the ethnic closeness between Finland and Estonia? Of course not, because it is a knowledge expected of a high schooler. What was discussed --- and extensively --- is the Finland's proxy war on Soviet Union on behalf of Hitler. And what was discussed, at length --- was Estonian complicity in helping Finlands efforts by sabotaging Soviet war efforts. You used the term "brotherly" to describe Estonian clandestine help to Finland to prosecute a war on behalf of Hiter. Knowingly, happily, creatively, bravely --- anything else you would like to say here? I did not here you deny this "brotherly" assistance, because it is truth. What you were trying to do is to avoid calling spade a spade: Finland was Hitler's ally. Put in this light, Estonian "brotherly" help looks a litte bit different, doesn't it?
You cannot deny that Estonians and Hitler, jointly, killed hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers, the same soldiers that sacrificed their lifes to stop the Nazi war machine. This does not bother you one bit. Your only regret is that Hitler and Estonians did not kill even more of them. You said that, more then clearly. So, while Europe was hoping somebody would stop the Nazi war machine, Estonians did everything to help that war machine.
You show your propensity for data manipulation when you toy with the irrelevancies. For example, your consternation that during the period of September 1939 and June 1940, while present in Estonian military basis, Soviet army actually exceeded numbers that were agreed upon with the Estonians government. Wow! Did they also chew gum, and drop it on the sidewalk? For the history's most horrendous, odious and never, ever seen baddies --- this was some offence! The point is, my dear Marzipan6, Soviet Army was concerned only with the advancing Hitler's reach through his proxy, Finland. And this is what Soviets were concerned at that time. They did not sack Estonian government, put people in prison, or deport. None of that. None. They did not harm Estonian population. But the Estonian population did everything during this time to provoke and harm them. All the intelligence sent from Estonia to Finland put their pilots in harm's way. All the volunteers that Estonia sent to Finland to help Nazi efforts there, were harming Soviet war effort. These were the events that convinced Soviet Union that Estonia, and other Baltic states were not a friendly territory. Soviet Union could not count on support of Estonian government and people in the direct, head-on conflict with Hitler. It is funny how much you talk of neutrality! What was neutral about all that overt and covert help to Finland? Even though it was clear that Finland was a proxy for Hiter's effort to weaken Russia in the Baltics? Both the supposedly "neutral" government, and the openly pro-Hitler populace, enthusiastically helped Finland's little jaunt testing the Soviet defences on behalf of Hitler?
After that nine month period, Soviet Union knew all it needed to know about the "neutrality" of Baltics. That is when the decision to occupy was made. It was not made in a vacuum. It was made once Hiter occupied France, and nothing remained for German military to do, but to turn East.
Facts are fact, Marzipan6. I think you are hoping people have nor read any of this. So, all you can do is go back to your comfortable ways of blaming Soviets for Estonia's Nazi collaboration. But it will not do, not any more.
As for the 10,000 deported Estonians, and the 50% returned, all sources say that, including some quite pro-Nazi Estonian authors that you can find by searching the Web.
On the territory of one former Hiter's "coalition of the willing" member, Croatia, over 11,000 children were murdered in just one, repeat one, region, Kozara mountain. In the concentration camps of Jasenovac - Gradiska, these thousands of little ones were most brutally murdered. Some were so mutulated, that even the sex of the victim was not know. They were all between few days old to 14 years old. The largest group murdered, were babies under one year of age. This is what Croatians did to help Hitler's efforts.
You would think that this is all past? No, my dearest Marzipan6. Today, just a few days ago during a soccer match, a song by a Nazi rocker, Thompson, was blaring from the loudspeaker. It was about the very Gradiska murders, so proudly remembered today in Croatia. And the crowds, by the thousands, raised their stiff arms chanting -- for Homeland, ready.
And this is the democratic Croatia, so lovingly accepted in NATO, into the company of the most advanced democracies in the world. And soon to be admitted into the European Union, of course. While the Serbian minority has been decimated in the war in the nineties, their thousands of villages in Krajina lay in ruin, swallowed by weeds and advancing forests.
So, when old Nazi collaborators gather in Estonia to recall the days of the old, I am sure they have a story or so to share about the "eastern front". Perhaps, they remember how may babies they killed?
Wake up, Marzipan6. Just wake up.
08 October, 2009, 16:16
Peter, I liked the second program ("Iran: Testing wills") better than the first one.
On the positive side:
(+) Technically much better.
(+) Static locations of all guests (including remote ones). No winds and car traffic behind their backs. :-)
(+) No raging debates. No entertainment. Exchange of opinions in the civilized way.
(+) Guest from Iran talking about Iran. I am tied to see and hear pro-Washington "Iranians". If fact, all my attention was on that guest -- the voice of real Iran.
(+) You often in the picture. Firstly, this centers the program. Secondly, I normally, tune in just to hear you and not somebody else.
(+) I liked working tandem Peter-Yelena
Still, I have some problems with the program:
(-) You interrupting speakers or rushing them.
(-) Again, too many guests limit time for each of them and they cannot express their opinions fully.
(-) Not enough video of country leaders. I prefer to hear the original information and not only interpretations. Like that "wiping out Israel..." which the whole US policy against Iran is based on.
(-) It would be good to have a pro-Russian guest on-board -- I am curious to hear the opinion of Russians about the issues. (Surely, as a moderator you cannot be in that role).
Anyway, Peter. From my taste, your program is better than anything available on the American TV today.
07 October, 2009, 20:36
Good show Peter!
Yes, RT needed “Cross Talk.” I have only good things to say about it and ‘yes’, it makes RT a more complete experiece.
Good job.
BR,
Aleks
Ps. I reserve the right to give a critical remark here and there later..
07 October, 2009, 13:59
@Marzipan6
06 October, 2009, 11:03
"I would like to amplify a little Giustino’s observation that many of the members of the Soviet destruction battalions of 1941 who carried out Stalin’s scorched earth policy in Estonia were ethnic Estonians. More than half of its personnel are acknowledged to have been Russians from across the border. Of the remainder, many were Estonians with a prior criminal record – thieves, murderers, brawlers, people with a grudge against society. Many others were Communist collaborators, who likewise had a grudge against society and who used Communist dogma to “get even” with accomplished and educated members of society whom they envied."
And who do you think the Communists recruited in Russia most of the fighters that took part in the “Russian revolution” were released from the prisons by the Communists who Trotsky, Lenin, Bela Kun had been imprisoned as well as Stalin under the Tsar.
And were they really ethnic Russians?
The Marxist terrorist that took over Russia as Winston Churchill put it in his famous Feb. 8, 1920 Illustrated Sunday Herald article
"In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Khazars is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed, the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Khazars, and in some notable cases by Khazarses.
"The same evil prominence was obtained by Khazars in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.
"...The fact that in many cases Khazar interests and Khazar places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Khazar race in Russia with villainies which are now being perpetrated...Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people." (End quote from Churchill).
You also forgot to mention the head of the NKVD was not Russian (Georgian Khazar Beria) as well as most of the top tear of the Communist branches of government.
And I mentioned before the two main Khazar organisations that were at the forefront in Estonia of its takeover and who financed it and became the leadership of the country post WW2 like the other Soviet satellite states.
The same pattern happen in Hungry with Bela Kun in his short rule in Hungry and I don’t think there were many Russians involved there.
I like that rationale the Communist collaborators in Estonia were not really Estonians but the Russian Communists where recruited in the ranks under the leadership of people like Trotsky and his group who held the reigns of power and destiny of Russia who would create the future leadership of Russia clearly should there contempt of Russia in there statements and actions.
Trotsky said of Russia
" - We should turn Her (Russia) into a desert populated with white N????rs We will impose upon them such a tyranny that was never dreamt by the most hideous despots of the East. The peculiar trait of that tyranny is that it will be enacted from the left. Rather than the right and it will be red rather than white in color. Its color will be red literally because we would spill such torrents of blood that will pale all human losses of the capitalist wars and make (the survivors) shudder. The largest overseas banks will cooperate with us most closely. If we win the Revolution and squash Russia, on the funeral pyres of its remains we will strengthen the power of Zhazarism and become a power the whole world would drop in the face of on its knees. We will show (to the world) what the real power means. By way of terror and blood baths we will bring Russian intelligentsia into the state of total stupor, to idiocy, to the animal state of being...And so far our young men dressed in leather - the sons of watch repair men from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitza - oh, how beautifully, how brilliantly do they master hatred of everything Russian! With what a great delight do they physically destroy Russian intelligentsia - officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, agronomists, academicians, writers!"
(Secrete Forces in History of Russia. U.K. Begunov 1995, p 148.
Definitely not an occupied government.
07 October, 2009, 12:32
Marzipan6,
you are proliferating your biased historionics in this space, as well. Remember, you are doing it again. Your hate of Russians in the guise of Estonian history experience has been debunked, over and over. Giustino is just repeating the cleaned up and beautified "history" of Estonia. Feel free to look up my reply to him, but stick with the original site. It is bad enough to pollute the original string. Your spamming needs answering --- with some real history. Your personal interpretations of it are justifying your hate speech against Russians. And, sorry, but somebody had to respond. Regardless of how you feel about WWII past, you have been allowed for much too long to glorify the Nazi exploits of Estonians in WWII, while blaming it on Russians. Your regret that Estonians fighting under Nazi flag did not kill more Russians in WWII --- speaks volumes about your selfrighteous lecturing on the horrors of wars and occuppations.
06 October, 2009, 14:29
Peter,
I watched the show, well done on your comment ‘Israel may be a democracy, but they are very violent’. Well done!
The Israeli and the Iranian spoke a lot of sense, but the Americans were saying nothing that made sense. I wish you had asked them how come Saudi Arabia, which is not a democracy, is allowed to purchase whatever weapons they want.
I just think next time be more direct with the thorny questions.
06 October, 2009, 14:27
@ Marzipan: Stalin was Georgian. Russians were all doing whetever the Georgian, Stalin, asked them to do. Lenin never wanted Stalin to take over, by the way
06 October, 2009, 11:03
I would like to amplify a little Giustino’s observation that many of the members of the Soviet destruction battalions of 1941 who carried out Stalin’s scorched earth policy in Estonia were ethnic Estonians. More than half of its personnel are acknowledged to have been Russians from across the border. Of the remainder, many were Estonians with a prior criminal record – thieves, murderers, brawlers, people with a grudge against society. Many others were Communist collaborators, who likewise had a grudge against society and who used Communist dogma to “get even” with accomplished and educated members of society whom they envied. And some others were people who participated because of Estonia’s deep-rooted historical animosity towards Germany.
As you can see, they were a mixed bunch of people. But they were there at the behest of Stalin, led by Russians and whether they knew it or not, in service of Moscow’s aim to enslave and thereafter to destroy Estonia. Certainly the atrocities that destruction battalions worked against Estonian civilians up and down the country makes the blood curdle.
05 October, 2009, 04:38
@Marzipan6
I know you posted this on this section by mistake so I'll only post it here instead of in the original article any response to this and I will post it in the original article.
That’s convenient isn't it that you would have no problem charging Russians with crimes and having a Russian motivation/attitude behind it but you don’t consider it irrelevant if the actual people who ordered it and where in charge were not even Russian. That the Soviet Union and Marxism was a Russian nationalist movement.
04 October, 2009, 23:51
JohnX asks whether I have details on the ethnic composition of the immediately pre-war Estonian government. I don’t, and I’ll tell you why: Estonians have never had a fixation with the ethnicity of people. Their concern is with culture, not ethnicity. Their culture is the only one in the world that actually nurtures their land, and in which they are at home and safe – all other cultures (and in their millennia-long history they have come across many) have shown interest only in using, abusing and destroying the land and its people. Therefore Estonians feel very defensive of their culture.
Ethnically Estonians are a mixed people, with several native sub-groups and a significant admixture of Swedish, German, Russian, Polish, Danish and other ethnicities. But their actual ethnicities become unimportant once they adopt the Estonian language and culture, and become part of the country’s cultural space. Judging a person’s ethnicity on the basis of their name is also quite unreliable. There are Estonians who have not had a foreign marriage into their family for longer than anyone can remember, but who still carry a foreign surname. And there are first-generation newcomers who speak with a strong foreign accent but who have a 100% Estonian surname, because they have legally adopted the name.
This may come as a surprise for people like Bianca, for example, who formulate involved theories about Estonians and their supposed attitudes and predispositions without the benefit of actually knowing any real live Estonians, and when an Estonian tells her that her theories are wrong she chooses to believe theories ahead of the realities. The problem is that there are only about a million Estonians, and there are many times more than that number of would-be dabblers in history who impute motives to them. Thus Estonians’ own authentic voice is not very strong.
Estonians have been persecuted for their ethnicity in their own homeland for centuries, and they have no appetite for inflicting the same misery on others. This is why they readily grant full citizenship according to standard international norms even to their one-time Russian oppressors. Russians who have learned the Estonian language and who wish to fit in with the country have no problems being accepted. I have personally met and spoken with an ethnic Russian member of the current Estonian parliament who was born in Russia, and the current Estonian President has Russian relatives.
03 October, 2009, 19:34
Peter, caught your first show today…
Particularly enjoyed the perplexed look on your face when the, “they can have nuclear weapons because they a democracy” came up ;)
Don’t forget that after the blog… a continuous CrossTalk feedback forum would be a nice place to chat generally about shows.
I thought it was too short… they were all just getting warmed up for war, and you had to end it, I think you need a sliding time slot, if its hot, you keep going.
Also, I think you have to master the leading question, and avoid host opinion… just political correctness, but most enjoyable anyway.
RT is fast becoming the only real news station on our 11 news channels.
Polite honesty is addictive… well done!
03 October, 2009, 16:38
Peter, just watched your first episode of crosstalk, and enjoyed it.
I believe a show with this format has been badly needed on RT for some time, lots of other news channels have similar format shows, which are popular: like inside story on al jazeera. Crosstalk fills this gap on RT.
May I suggest an online comment page for your show, where viewers can post questions/comments in realtime, or do you have a webpage for crosstalk for people to discuss it?
Btw, Peter, In Context will be sorely missed, I know you're a busy man, would be great if there was a 15 minute analays show with you also, sort of a restructured in context: as I remeber in context used to be 15 minutes analysis, and 15 minute interview. Now that Crosstalk is here, the interview on in context can be scrapped (like the missile shield in europe), but I believe you should not completly shelve your analysis show, just as Dmitry Rogozin said Russia has not shelved a military response to America's new proposed mobile missile defence shield!!
03 October, 2009, 13:47
Good show Peter, I agree 2 guests are enough unless the programme is made longer. The problem is half hour with 3 guest and Peters worthy contribution only gives time for "sound bite" analysis on complicated issues. Also I like good healthy debate I found the guests had almost the same opinion and were a bit tame for my liking.
01 October, 2009, 22:25
Just watched the show and liked it but due to time constraints it would have been better and went more smoothly if it was only 2 guests instead of 3 where they would have more time express there opinions better.
I rather the video segments as well didn’t have the crosstalk border above it cutting of about a quarter of the picture it is quite distracting.
There also were some minor technical difficulties but seeing how it is the first show it will probably be fixed by the next episode
01 October, 2009, 10:30
well, Peter and the whole team, really job well done, it wasnt your monologue, moderating 3 peeps with technical imperfections were still impressive, also timing seemed to be good for everyone, but all the issues to be talked over would take out the advertising out
01 October, 2009, 05:46
Peter, I thought, that was a good program (I watched it on the youtube). One thing, which normally gives that attracting power to any of your visual presentation, -- the pitch of your voice, which creates certain comfort and helps to percept better the information you provide. But, nothing you can do to fix that "problem", I guess. :-) So, from my perspective -- talk more. :-)
Also, Peter, where did you dig out the corp of this political dinosaur Donald Jensen from? He irritated me almost all your program? Or may be I was not attentive enough to his words, too prejudice, or just not in the mood. Sorry, Peter, but I am already so tied to hear these voices of political ghosts during several years watching American TV programs and listening political talk shows.
What I liked in your program:
a) The video clips with Medvedev, Putin, and Obama.
It seems nothing unusual with this -- everybody does it. But, it was not chaotic and random as they normally do on the US TV, with, seems, the only purpose -- to show that those people are still alive. On your program the clips provided with the contest which fitted well to the discussed topic. Basically, the words of the shown leaders where important and not only their "on-duty visual participation" on your program. Also, I liked that there were only few of those clips with really relevant people. Too many (clips and people) -- distract attention from a content.
What I didn't like:
a) The guests "working from home" (remote participants).
I never liked it, by the way. Neither in Russia nor in America. It makes program being "jerky" and lower quality -- those participants from the "outer worlds" seem never have enough time to talk due to bad connection, strong winds behind their backs, or something else. Besides, I don't know if those remote guests are fully dressed, which bothers me... :-) I would prefer if all your guests will be in the studio and talk with each other and with you face-to-face without fear being cut off. And have enough time to full express themselves. If you have to use remote guests keep them on camera all the time and be sure that the communication channel with them works perfectly. To create the illusion that they are in the studio.
b) The choice of guests to create a confrontation between them.
I never thought that this is good idea to build a political talk show based on the confrontation between its participants. Although, it is done almost in all cases in the US media when they discuss certain hot and controversial topic. When this happens I pay attention on the "fight" rather than on the contents. Ironically, but the "fighters" themselves after some time seem forget what they are trying to say and focusing more on crashing each other instead of communicating with the audience. Peter, you have a program divided on two parts. Use the first part to present, say, the pro-Iranian opinions and the second half -- anti-Iranian. I will figure out myself what to do with this and whom to follow.
01 October, 2009, 00:05
Hi Peter, I'm watching RT from
It's first day of broadcast especially your
Personal shows. I'm watching crosstalk
Right now, and I think it's absolutely
Fantastic!! The only similar concept
About a tv broadcast I can recall is
"crossfire" hosted at cnn many years
Ago. But yours is much better. I could
Say that it's crossfire+larry king live
Merged, but yours is better than each
Of these two. I only wish it wouldn't be
Once a week, but more often. Keep
Up the excellent work. I wish the best.
A fan from beautiful Greece
30 September, 2009, 21:22
Hi Peter,
I saw CrossTalk today and thought it was both very informative and well balanced. I was pleased to see that all your guests were given equal time to express their opinions. More importantly, I am very grateful for a TV debate show in which experts discuss issues in a civil manner as opposed to descending into chaotic argumentative shouting which only alienates viewers and results in no viewpoint being heard fairly. I look forward to watching the show progress and am sure that with the wide range of poltical hot potatoes out there, you will not be short of issues to discuss.